Modelling the effect of light through commercially available blue-blocking lenses on the human circadian system.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Wearing blue-blocking lenses (BBLs) in the evening hours may not be effective in improving sleep quality. Optometrists need to be informed in prescribing BBLs by highlighting the consequences of their wear to the circadian system. BACKGROUND: Excessive exposure to artificial light, particularly at short wavelengths, during the evening, may disrupt normal nocturnal melatonin production, which is a natural process of the circadian rhythm and affect sleep quality. Current BBLs have been designed to limit blue-light exposure and may offer a means to minimise disruption to the circadian system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of BBLs on a normal sleep-wake circadian rhythm. METHODS: Seven different commercial brands of BBLs (Crizal Prevencia, Smart Blue Filter, Blu-OLP, Blue Control, UV++Blue Control, SeeCoat Blue UV and Blue Guardian) and powers (+2.00 D, -2.00 D and Plano) were evaluated by quantifying the degree to which they reduce light radiation from lamps and electronic devices. In particular, the non-linear circadian index and the circadian stimulus was determined for various light sources to establish changes in melatonin production that occur while viewing through different BBLs. RESULTS: A large difference was shown in the effectiveness of different BBL brands in reducing the spectral sensitivity of the circadian system. The BBL brand was shown to selectively affect the non-linear circadian index and circadian stimulus, particularly with those with transmittance profiles that block the most blue light having the lowest effect on the suppression of nocturnal melatonin secretion. CONCLUSION: BBLs may not improve sleep quality, because they continue to allow the transmittance of blue light that may suppress nocturnal melatonin secretion and hence disrupt the normal sleep-wake circadian rhythm.

The effect of blue light filtering lenses on speed perception.

Blue-light filtering lenses (BFLs) are marketed to protect the eyes from blue light that may be hazardous to the visual system. Because BFLs attenuate light, they reduce object contrast, which may impact visual behaviours such as the perception of object speed which reduces with contrast. In the present study, we investigated whether speed perception is affected by BFLs. Using a two-interval forced-choice procedure in conjunction with Method of Constant Stimuli, participants (n = 20) judged whether the perceived speed of a moving test stimulus (1.5-4.5°/s) viewed through a BFL was faster than a reference stimulus (2.75°/s) viewed through a clear lens. This procedure was repeated for 3 different BFL brands and chromatic and achromatic stimuli. Psychometric function fits provided an estimate of the speed at which both test and reference stimuli were matched. We find that the perceived speed of both chromatic and achromatic test stimuli was reduced by 6 to 20% when viewed through BFLs, and lenses that attenuated the most blue-light produced the largest reductions in perceived speed. Our findings indicate that BFLs whilst may reduce exposure to hazardous blue light, have unintended consequences to important visual behaviours such as motion perception.

The Effect of Blue-blocking Lenses on Photostress Recovery Times.

SIGNIFICANCE: The selective reduction in visible wavelengths transmitted through commercially available blue-blocking lenses (BBLs) is known to influence the appearance and contrast detection of objects, particularly at low light levels. This influence may impair the human retinal receptor response time to dynamic light changes during photostress events. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess whether BBLs selectively affect photostress recovery times (PSRTs) for chromatic and achromatic stimuli of different Weber contrasts that were viewed on a dark black background. METHODS: Photostress recovery times were measured in 12 younger participants (18 to 39 years old) with no history of ocular disease or abnormal vision. Photostress recovery times were evaluated for four brands of BBLs, which were compared with a control lens. In these experiments, after exposure to an intense light source for 5 seconds, the time taken to recover vision and correctly identify a computer-generated letter stimulus viewed under low and high luminance levels was determined, which means perception is likely to be governed by mesopic and photopic conditions. Across conditions, the letter stimulus was achromatic and chromatic and could differ in luminance contrast. RESULTS: Under photopic stimulus conditions, although reducing luminance contrast increased PSRTs, BBLs had no significant effect on PSRTs relative to control lens. However, under mesopic stimulus conditions, BBLs significantly affect PSRTs for both achromatic (F2.006,8.02 = 61.95, P < .0001) and chromatic stimuli (F3,16 =139.01, P < .0001), particularly for blue targets, which had considerably longer PSRTs (38.40 seconds). The brand of BBL was also shown to selectively affect PSRTs, with those with transmittance profiles that block the most blue light having longer PSRTs. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that, although the color and contrast of the target stimuli affected recovery times, the difference in recovery times between different types of BBLs was noticed only under low-light-level stimulus conditions.